RoR: Forum

Actually, Jonathan, I would not dismiss that idea completely. Did you ever read Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein? He definitely challenged social mores against that practice. He challenged many other social mores as well, but that falls outside the scope of this thread.

I respect the right of the living to dictate how they dispose of their own dead bodies as they dictate the disposal of their other property posthumously via wills, trusts and estate plans. Many people opt to donate their tissues and organs or even their entire bodies to science and medicine. So I take no issue with those who want to donate them to restaurants. If you read the aforementioned novel, I might just grok it quite well.

I remember seeing Soylent Green years ago and thinking of a clever slogan based on the Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company television commercials:

"Soylent Green is people you can count on when the going's rough."

If I had enough hunger, certainly I would consider cannibalism of the deceased. This action has been documented in a number of stories of exploration parties caught in the wilderness without food supplies. I would not support murdering them for food, but once they die, if I am hungry, I will not let social conventions stand between me and life.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/30, 1:44pm)

Post 101

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 1:28pm

So I take no issue with those who want to donate them to restaurants

Luke, I guess you are used to eat hot dogs, but humans are not dogs.

Post 102

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 2:05pm

Re Cal's "seiz[ing] any opportunity to discredit [Rand's] views and those of her supporters" and his "never miss[ing] an opportunity to discredit her views and to belittle her supporters as cultists and Randroids" (quoting from Bill's post #98), I think you show a lack of imagination, Bill, as to the number of possible opportunities for such criticism. Cal comes nowhere near to availing himself of all of them. Indeed, I think that during the years of my acquaintance with you in listland, you've availed yourself of significantly more such opportunities than he has. (I'm not planning to attempt a tally.) I also think that it isn't so much his criticisms of Objectivists at large that nettles you as it is his criticisms specifically of views you've propounded. (I base this opinion on your seeming more prickly in regard to Cal than you characteristically act responding to Rand detractors, combined with my having noticed a number of times when it's specifically been posts of yours to which Cal has replied with slighting comments.)

Ellen

___

Post 103

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 3:45pm

So what's the Objectivist position on cannibalism? Do Objectivists think that it's a hell of a waste of meat to just bury or cremate corpses? According to Objectivism, if -- hypothetically -- Luke, Bill and Joe wanted to, shouldn't they be allowed to eat the dead?

Reminds me of a novel by Michael Crichton entitled Eaters of the Dead aka The 13th Warrier - a book about Viking exploits as supposedly chronicled by a Muslim observer in the 10th Century - a fascinating read. But I digress.

Jonathan, what is your point? Is it that the aversion to criticizing someone on the occasion of his death is like our aversion to cannibalism - that if we're willing to dispense with the one, then why not the other? What seems to be forgotten here is that someone who was no friend of Objectivism was given a eulogy on an Objectivist forum. Is objecting to that like endorsing cannabilism? Or do I miss the point?

- Bill

Post 104

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 4:55pm

Ellen wrote,

Re Cal's "seiz[ing] any opportunity to discredit [Rand's] views and those of her supporters" and his "never miss[ing] an opportunity to discredit her views and to belittle her supporters as cultists and Randroids" (quoting from Bill's post #98), I think you show a lack of imagination, Bill, as to the number of possible opportunities for such criticism. Cal comes nowhere near to availing himself of all of them.

Oh, really? So, you think that Rand deserves even more criticism than even Cal is making of her. That's interesting.

Indeed, I think that during the years of my acquaintance with you in listland, you've availed yourself of significantly more such opportunities than he has. (I'm not planning to attempt a tally.)

My criticisms have been nowhere near as broad as his. If the opportunities of which I've availed myself have been greater, it's because I've been posting on Objectivist lists for a longer period of time, but my disagreement has been confined largely to the issue of determinism and free will whose threads have been voluminous, as I'm sure you are aware. One other area that I disagree with is the Objectivist definition of truth, but it's on a a relatively minor point.

I certainly don't have a problem with people criticizing Rand's philosophy, but if that's all they do -- if they never defend Rand and appear to make no serious effort to understand her philosophy -- then it's difficult to see them as basic supporters of Objectivism who take exception to a few of its tenets here and there.

I also think that it isn't so much his criticisms of Objectivists at large that nettles you as it is his criticisms specifically of views you've propounded. (I base this opinion on your seeming more prickly in regard to Cal than you characteristically act responding to Rand detractors, combined with my having noticed a number of times when it's specifically been posts of yours to which Cal has replied with slighting comments.)

Perhaps, but why wouldn't I be more likely to respond to his criticisms of me than of someone else? Besides, those slighting comments have always been in response to my defense of Rand and of Objectivism. Glenn Fletcher has observed the same anti-Objectivist bias coming from Cal that I have, and has commented on it elsewhere. So I'm not the only one to have expressed such an opinion.

I admire Rand and am a big fan of her philosophy. I think I've made that very clear. Do you get any sense of that from Cal? I don't. What I do get is the opposite impression. His posts reflect a real animus towards Objectivism and those who defend and support it.

- Bill

Post 105

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 4:55pm

A lot of people here knew Nathan (at least online) because he once participated a lot. That is why notice of his passing is appropriate. If nobody knew him, that would be different.

Objectivism had nothing to do with Nathan's death.

Objectivism has nothing to do with giving notice of his death. The fact that many people knew him and interacted with him here is the reason. The notice was given to (1) communicate his passing and (2) give those who knew him and liked him a chance to say goodbye.

That is the context and principle regardless of the nature of the discussion forum. If this were a discussion forum for chess, high fashion, current affairs, dating or anything else, that context and principle remain the same.

Ignoring this is certainly not "challenging a tradition 2000 years old." It is just ignoring context and principle.

Michael

Post 106

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 6:04pm

Hey, Linz gets it! That should tell you something, Luke. It won�t, but it should.

�The "eulogy" was personal to Aaron, and he had every right to post it.� How about that�You try and defend a man�s property rights and he gives you the gentle brush-aside!

Post 107

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 6:05pm

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 7/30, 6:48pm)

Post 108

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 9:10pm

A lot of people here knew Nathan (at least online) because he once participated a lot. That is why notice of his passing is appropriate. If nobody knew him, that would be different.

I agree with this, Michael. A simple notice of Nathan's passing is fine. I think that what Luke didn't endorse is what he referred to as "unearned praise." Aaron's notice was not just of Nathan's passing, but a eulogy as well. It is the eulogy that Luke didn't agree with. He is not, as far as I am aware, disagreeing with Aaron's right to post such a eulogy, but only with the eulogy itself. If Aaron had a right to post it, didn't Luke have a right to express his disagreement? I just don't see this as some kind of egregious faux paus!

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 7/30, 9:26pm)

Post 109

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 9:56pm

"Aaron's notice was not just of Nathan's passing, but a eulogy as well."

I miss Nathan as well. He was an original thinker, he was creative, when he created his website he was a gracious host. He deserved a eulogy for his actions as an intelligent productive human being regardless of any individual points of disagreement anyone on this site had with him. His life was unfortunately cut short. We do not know the direction his ideas may have gone. Being an original thinker he might have discovered insights that would have enriched all of our thinking in time. He was a willing sounding board for ideas at the very least.

I find the gratuitous criticisms of him in this thread to be pointless and small minded considering his life has been cut short. Damning someone to hell after death should be left to the religionists.
(Edited by Mike Erickson
on 7/31, 5:08am)

Post 110

Monday, July 31, 2006 - 1:51am

Let me start with a partial apology to Jon. I was unaware of your past activism, and I mistakenly extrapolated your current inactivity in the area of activism. Hats off to you for you past work, and I hope to see some of it in the future.

I say partial apology because I still think your attacks on Luke are unjustified. Whether you like him or not, he's out there trying to spread Objectivism, and offer value to those who want it. Until your willing to step up and do the job better, your criticisms just come off as whining. And as I said when I created this site, I want it to be a place to encourage activists. Their job is hard enough as it is. I want them to be able to come here for fuel. You can argue with them, tell them that their ideas are wrong, and even dislike them, but I don't see any justification for attacking their efforts at Objectivist activism. And are you so afraid that Luke will become an Objectivist leader that you have to try to prevent it? To the extent he is or becomes one, it'll be based on how much value he offers.

As an aside, I like Luke. I don't always agree with him, and I can see some validity in some criticisms, but those are not significant. He's someone who works very hard at promoting Objectivism, as well as integrating it in his own life. He's someone who takes it absolutely seriously, so much so that even some Objectivists mock him for it. He's a radical in a way that many of the people on this site (and thread!!!) are not. He's willing to question every premise, instead of accepting blindly what others tell him or what others feel must be true. And because of that, he can always be persuaded by reason in a way that I haven't found true of even most Objectivists. And of course, he's a friend.

Now, I said �But if it's offensive to the people who care about someone when you say bad things after they're dead, isn't it also offensive to people that didn't like him when you say nice things?� The point is that people are saying we shouldn't mention bad things after a person dies because it might upset the people who loved them. But the opposite is also the case. If someone hated him, he won't want to hear positive things about the person. You can't make both sides happy. This belief that we need to be nice is just picking one side and deciding to upset the other. But the problem is that picking either side is upholding a primacy of emotions, where you're only allowed to acknowledge facts that make certain people happy. Picking either side is a sacrifice of rationality.

You said "No. Distorted things, yes. Nice, no.". It might upset someone that hates a person if they heard distortions, just as it would upset someone who loved him. But if you can accept that loved ones don't want to hear negative things, why couldn't people that hate them not want to hear positive? But again, if we're stuck upholding a primacy of emotions, then it's just picking arbitrarily who we should make happy, isn't it? And what if the loved ones are actually wrong?

And finally, as for you joke, I didn't think you were serious. But I thought the joke only made sense if the real "crime" was insulting the person after they die, instead of hurting the loved ones. That's the contradiction. If you consistently viewed the real harm as hurting the loved ones, the joke wouldn't make any sense at all.

Post 111

Monday, July 31, 2006 - 2:13am

Bill asks:

Jonathan, what is your point? Is it that the aversion to criticizing someone on the occasion of his death is like our aversion to cannibalism - that if we're willing to dispense with the one, then why not the other?

Bill, allow me to give my interpretation. Jonathan is saying that if we were to use our reasoning minds, we might come to conclusions contrary to strongly held emotionally powerful beliefs. We might find that some of them are baseless or flat out wrong. And so he's arguing with my statement that we should question our premises. He fears doing so, because of what he may find. And as an example, he explains how he himself is convinced that cannibalism actually is rational and in our self-interest. He therefore concludes that we must abandon reason, and must never check our premises.

The disgusting part is how many people rushed to sanction him. Someone upholds blind worship of tradition and they applaud him. Someone says we must not check our premises, and these so-called Objectivists agree. He says we must not think for ourselves, and they salute him. He says the feelings of other people are a valid argument, and they just feel that he's right! He says that if they think, they'll all become cannibals, and they can't see any flaw in the argument, so they are happy to shut down their minds.

Pathetic. But it's not the first time we've seen this. Too many people here think that they can point to what society thinks and call that a valid argument. They hide it behind phrases like "public relations", "ick factor", or just insist over and over that "it's the right thing to do!". This is the consequence of following Jonathan's advice to shut your mind off and never look for reasons behind your beliefs. This is the only argument they can offer, since they're afraid of using reason to check their premises.

Post 112

Monday, July 31, 2006 - 2:23am

Mike Erickson jokes:

"an original thinker"..."creative"..."gracious host"..."intelligent productive human being"....

ending with:

"Judging someone after death should be left to the religionists."

I got it Mike! It was subtle, because you didn't put any smiley faces. But to make an entire post judging someone after his death, and then end it with that line! Classic! You build up one way, and then you throw out a statement that so completely contradicts everything you said...beautifully done!

Post 113

Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 9:43pm

Bill,

Hell, if people are now going to proclaim that cannibalism is moral under Objectivism, there isn't too much to discuss. What's a party-poop next to that?

Go for it. Have a ball.

Michael

Post 114

Monday, July 31, 2006 - 3:19am

Bill Wrote:

As I said in a previous post, just because someone is not entirely supportive of Rand or Objectivism, it doesn't follow that he or she is unworthy of our respect; it depends on how corrupt the person's values are.

Assuming that any rational disagreement is the result of a corruption of values explains quite a lot. This is even more cultish behaviour than just taking offense as Cal explained.

The problem is that Cal has not just aired his disagreements, he has pointed out errors. There's a big difference.

Bob

(Edited by Mr Bob Mac on 7/31, 3:25am)

Post 115

Monday, July 31, 2006 - 3:44am

I haven't commented on this thread yet but I'd like to address the red herring of cannibalism that was brought up. To make something clear our rights do not end upon our death. This is why we have wills, our bodies are our own property just as our house, car, and other items that belong to our estate. Since this is our property while we are alive, including our bodies, we have the right to state how this property is to be transferred or handled upon our death. Whether it be donated to charity, to be transferred to our families and friends, or how our bodies upon our death are to be dealt with; Cremation, burial in a cemetery, donated for research, etc.

A will is essentially a contract of how property is to be transferred. No one has the right to simply take someone's property and cannibalize the dead as that would be nothing short of looting.

Post 116

Monday, July 31, 2006 - 5:40am

I agree completely with John Armaos in Post 115 and sanctioned it. My Post 100 makes essentially the same statement with the caveat that a person ought to have the legal freedom to will his own body to a restaurant just as he would will it to science, etc. I cannot image the motives behind people who want to dine there, but strictly speaking, no violations of rights take place. I doubt Ayn Rand would sanction it as "moral" but I would question exactly why she would brand it as immoral if no rights get violated and the consciousness has dissipated from the body via natural causes. She branded homosexuality as "immoral and disgusting" but most Objectivists challenge that assertion, too.

Post 117

Monday, July 31, 2006 - 8:54am

Michael Kelly wrote,

Bill,

Hell, if people are now going to proclaim that cannibalism is moral under Objectivism, there isn't too much to discuss. What's a party-poop next to that?

Go for it. Have a ball.

Michael, I have no idea why you're addressing these remarks to me? Where have I said that cannibalism is moral under Objectivism?

Bob Mac quotes me as follows - "As I said in a previous post, just because someone is not entirely supportive of Rand or Objectivism, it doesn't follow that he or she is unworthy of our respect; it depends on how corrupt the person's values are." - and replies

Assuming that any rational disagreement is the result of a corruption of values explains quite a lot. This is even more cultish behaviour than just taking offense as Cal explained.

Why would you assume that I regard the disagreement as rational, if I thought it reflected philosophically corrupt ideas?

The problem is that Cal has not just aired his disagreements, he has pointed out errors. There's a big difference.

Why do you assume that I agree with this when it's obvious I don't. And if you don't assume it, then why are you stating this as if it were a self-evident truth?

- Bill

Post 118

Monday, July 31, 2006 - 9:20am

Hi Joe,

Thanks for the partial apology. It wasn�t even necessary; I took no offense but was only correcting an assumption you were reasonable to make. I appreciate your leniency with me and I have heard your concerns. In future I will try to keep my criticisms of activists more idea-focused, less personal, less rancorous.

You write, �� I don't see any justification for attacking their efforts at Objectivist activism.�

But there is a justification for attacking some of his efforts at �activism,� where I see them as counter-productive. And I consider that, as such, to be a valid form of activism. It�s not much, but given my time and other values, it�s something.

�And are you so afraid that Luke will become an Objectivist leader that you have to try to prevent it?�

There may be no way to prevent it. In my experience, there are loads of people attracted to Luke�s style. They are drawn to sophisticated-sounding philosophical pretexts for nurturing a meanness of spirit that they should be shamed, not congratulated, for.

�And as I said when I created this site, I want it to be a place to encourage activists. Their job is hard enough as it is. I want them to be able to come here for fuel.�

Aaron is young, in college. He obviously has an interest in Objectivism. So ask him how encouraged and fueled-up he is by your friend�s behavior.

Raising children, I can tell you that stuff like, �I do not need you,� rolls off their tongue regularly. It is not profound. Nor is pissing-on-death-announcements-as-challenge-to-two-thousand-year-old-traditions.

Post 119

Monday, July 31, 2006 - 9:23am